Best 30" monitor

Hey Folks,

My old 30" monitor recently died, so I'm looking for a new one. These are the specs I'm looking for:

Primary use: Gaming and programming
Resolution: 2560 x 1600
Matte finish
Low response time
Low input lag
Price is not a concern

Do you have any recommendations?

Thanks,

James

1. response time is a bs number, its there to fool you and does not represent the true response time of the monitor, there is no real way of truly finding what response time is, the closest to it is white to white but you don't see that, you see grey to grey or black to black cause they give small numbers to fool users but they don't mean anything, there are different methods to get these numbers also, and each will give a different number as results, therefore you can even compare one to the other, cause we don't know what method was used for which, and even if we did, still GTG or BTB don't mean anything.

2. contrast ratio is also bs number.

Most important thing about a monitor is its panel, right now there are 2 major ones, TN and IPS, IPS has superior picture quality/clarity.

as mentioned the u3011 is a great monitor since its IPS.

Dell UltraSharp U3011 30"

the Dell has a better processor if I'm not mistaken and you could have gotten it for less.

problem here is that you don't have teh dell next to it to compare it, otherwise I can tell you right now you gonna like it since its IPS, but the Dell is a better monitor.

that input lag stuff is bs and won't really matter, we have a few people here that have the dell, game on it and have no complaints, to me the higher processor is more important, but to each his own.

anadtech has its own issues when it comes to tvs/monitors, they won't even admit that response time is bs.

Edited by DST4ME - 09 Nov 2011 at 5:45am

If the test itself is not 100% accurate and/or done correctly/properly, the results are BS.

1. I don't believe snapping pics of wings of fury 3DMark 2003 demo is the proper/accurate way of measuring lag.

2. I never ever go by results of one test, cause those results can be specific to that individual.

3. For me its not a matter of me proving anybody wrong, since they have not proven by any means that what they are doing is correct and everybody else/most people can duplicate their results.

I go around the net the all day and find many sites be completely inaccurate about things I know about.

I like anadtech but I have seen them make lot of comments about things that are not correct, at the end of the day, you are really dealing with one individual and not the whole site. If you look at anadtech's monitor reviews, you will see most times its done by the same person, brian, whom sometimes I like to smack for giving his opinion as fact.

Edited by DST4ME - 09 Nov 2011 at 7:24pm

My surroundings is loud with all kinds of stuff, tv/fans/etc, so I can't speak for that, when it is quiet personally I didn't notice anything.

if you search dragoon's posts, he has one too, he loves his and no complaints as far as I know.

Edited by DST4ME - 10 Nov 2011 at 5:35pm

I had a chance to compare these monitors side by side today:
     HP ZR30w
     Dell U3011

I used each one for several hours, and frequently switched between them. I used them for Battlefield 3 gaming, surfing the web, and computer programming. I tested them with my MacBook Pro, and my Digital Storm gaming rig.

Here are the results of my tests:

HP Advantages:
     * Simpler controls
     * Easier to find a brightness setting that looks good
     * Lower input lag (in theory)

Dell Advantages:
     * Better cable management
     * More attractive
     * Swiveling base
     * Doesn't hum as much as the HP
     * More input options

My favorite feature of the HP is it's simplicity. The only display setting is brightness. It makes it very easy to find the optimal brightness. Sometimes my office is full of sunlight, and other times it's pitch dark outside. Thus I tend to adjust the brightness frequently. This was super-easy with the HP. The Dell on the other hand has brightness, contrast, gamma, sharpness, and even 8 preset modes. It took a lot more fiddling to get the appearance that I wanted. For example, to adjust the contrast requires a minimum of 4 button presses on the Dell.

However, that was the HP's only real advantage. I liked the Dell in every other way. The HP had an annoying 60 Hz hum that was louder when you turned the brightness down. The Dell does this also, but it's quiet enough that you don't notice it much.

The Dell is also more attractive, mainly because it has better cable management. All of the cables route through a hole in the monitor stand. The hole is up high, so it pulls the cables up where you can't see them from the front of the monitor. In contrast, the HP routes the cables through a hole at the bottom of the base. This makes all of the cables visible from the front. Nothing ruins the clean appearance of your workspace like a power cable, 3 USB cables, and a DVI cable all hanging down at the bottom of your monitor. With the HP you'd be better off not using the cable management.

The Dell also pivots on its stand, and it has a plethora of input options (two DVI, VGA, and DisplayPort). I'm only using DVI, but it's nice to know there are other options.

Regarding input lag, I played Battlefield 3 with both monitors. I payed close attention to how responsive the game felt. Both monitors were excellent. I think maybe the HP felt a little snappier, but it was so subtle that it might have been a psychological effect. After all, I knew I was playing on a monitor that was reported to have less input lag. I'm not sure that I would have noticed the difference if it had been a blind test. Anyway, if it took me 30 minutes to determine which monitor has less input lag, then obviously the monitors are pretty similar.

So there you have it. I'm keeping the Dell, and sending the HP back because of the hum.